Wait, wait, wait. Now stop. Think about what you've been told. Now. Does it sound reasonable?

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Did the Society of Homeopaths meet with the Department of Health or didn't they? Depends who you ask....

The Freedom of Information Act is a wonderful thing. Anything you want to know (with some exceptions) regarding anything that goes in the public sector can be investigated using an FOI request. Bane of politicians and ninja tool of news hacks looking for dirt, it is an extremely valuable resource for finding out what our tax dollars fund.

I was made aware of one such example recently.

The Society of Homeopaths - the ones that tried and failed miserably to sue The Quackometer for demonstrating that homeopaths regularly flout their own code of conduct and in some cases prescribe homeopathic medicines for potentially fatal diseases like malaria - put out a press release on 28th February 2008 regarding a consultation to allow the SoH to become the UK regulatory body for homeopaths.

The press release contained the two following statements:

The Society of Homeopaths, Britain’s largest professional association of homeopaths, today announced that it has begun a wide-ranging consultation as it prepares to launch the UK’s first independent single register and regulatory body for homeopaths. Following a recent meeting with the Department of Health, the Board of the 30 year old Society resolved to divest its self-regulation and governance arm from its membership and continuing professional development functions in order to create a first-class regulatory body, which will govern the professional practice of an expanding number of homeopathy practitioners.

Gripping stuff. But nonetheless, it appears that a meeting was held with Dept. of Health concerning future regulation. Indeed, later on in press release we find out that:

The resolution approved by the Board became viable after our consultation with the Department of Health and we are convinced that this big step forward will benefit patients, their families and the profession as a whole”.

Promoted from a meeting up to a consultation. Seems like the DoH are bedbuddies with the SoH and everyone is happy.

That is, until you ask the Dept of Health for their take on it. I've been made aware of an FOI request asking for minutes of the meetings between SoH and DoH in the last two years. The result? The Freedom of Information Unit at the Dept of Health has stated:

I can confirm that there have been no meetings between the Department and the Society of Homeopaths over the last two years.

(My bold)

Seems like a very one-sided consultation if the DoH weren't even there*. So who do you believe - A Freedom of Information request from the Department of Health, or a press-release from a self-interested group of quacks?

Make your own Freedom of Information requests via this easy to use website, WhatDoTheyKnow.com

*EDIT (3rd July 2008): In an interesting turn of events, the FOI officer has responded to the above webpage full of apologies and hand-wringing, for TWICE confirming that the SoH and Dept of Health had not met. What he meant was that there were no formal meetings with the SoH. There was, however, an informal meeting and a DoH official did make some scribbly notes, which have been transcribed (thanks Tristan) as follows:

Meeting with The Department of HealthWednesday 30th January 2008Quarry House, Leeds

Draft agenda

11:00 Welcome and Introductions11:10 The Society of Homeopaths – an introduction11:30 The Department of Health – regulation update *11:50 Opportunities for joint working11:55 AOB12:00 Close

Increased lay involvementChanges to regulator’s governanceSeparation of investigation and adjudicationChanges to standard of proofChanges to CHRE’s powers & governance

Well it always looked difficult to believe. Why would the department of health, after spending £900,000 with Prince Charles to set up a regulatory body for them, suddenly feel happy for the homeopaths to go it alone? Always was fishy.

Keep Libel Laws out of Science

About Me

Who I am is largely irrelevant, and indeed so are most of my thoughts.
Nonetheless, it winds me up that I am supposed to swallow half-truths and untruths relating to scientific claims emanating directly from media sources and indirectly from people who haven't a clue what they're talking about.
Look, you've got me started.
(You can email me at thinkingisdangerousblog AT googlemail DOT com.)